Is Saddam really a threat?

[DocHorror]

That is true, but depends on favourable conditions, etc...

[Admiral Piett]

Mind you,eliminating Saddam would be an improvement,from an humanitarian point of view if anything else.However from what
I have seen here many americans seem believe that invading the country x (Iraq,Saydi Arabia,whatever...) would inflict a devastating blow to terrorism. Unfortunately it does not work in that way.
Of course there are some countries,for example Saudi Arabia,which play an important role.But they are not totally irreplaceable.
And as far as the financing goes,even if you invaded Saudi Arabia how would you be sure that someone there is not still secretly puring money into terrorism? It is not like you can look in the wallet of every Saudi... The algerians fiananced their war of independence mainly by popular contributions and the IRA is (or was) partly financed by popular contributions if I recall correctly,so I would not underestimate this possibility.
In a war on an organization like Al Quaeda there cannot be a single "decisive battle".

[irishmick79]

By reducing the direct involvement of government in insulating and protecting terrorist groups, you reduce, but not eliminate the ability of terrorists to conduct their operations. Granted, countries may choose to indirectly support these groups as Saudi Arabia appears to have done, but even Saudi Arabia cannot be realisticly accused of recruiting and training personnel for terrorist groups. Governments that choose to harbor, recruit and train terrorist groups are playing a much more active role in the terror game, and provide terrorists with safe havens and government protection to a much greater degree than governments who choose to indirectly support terrorism. Because of this extended support, governments more directly involved in supporting terrorism are thus more directly targeted.

[Admiral Piett]

Unfortunately the list of countries that could become bases of terrorism like Afghanistan is probably pretty long.Every failed hellhole in Africa would probably be a good candidate to harbor terrorists.

[Admiral Piett]

[quote="irishmick79"]even Saudi Arabia cannot be realisticly accused of recruiting and training personnel for terrorist groups[quote]

True,my point was that country is a source of money and recruits for terrorism but its government may not necessarily be the one to blame for this.Even if the USA ruled it directly probably they would not be able to stop completely the flow of money and recruits for terrorism in anyway.

[irishmick79]

Right, I agree that if a country is gonna support terrorism in some way shape or form, more than likely its gonna be able to do so. You've just got to more directly target those that more directly support terrorism, and worry about the rest when you can.

Africa wouldn't be that easy to predict. While most of africa is Muslim, the rallying cry of palestinian statehood that unites most arab fundamentalists doesn't have the same weight in africa. Most arab groups are more interested in activities in the Middle East, and thus there would be little basis for relationships with african countries to be formed on.

While governments in africa might be openly hostile to fundamentalists setting up shop in their countries, like Algeria for example, it would be unclear how much they would be able to do when driving them out.

[irishmick79]

Out of curiosity, what country are in the EU are you from?